- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Regarding Lois Lerner's proclamation of innocence and the Fifth Amendment
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:26 pm to Decatur
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:26 pm to Decatur
You've become terminally pedantic in your attempts to rationalize the criminal behavior you'd prefer to ignore because of your hackish, partisan, completely political reasons.
0
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:26 pm to Decatur
quote:
So what you're basically saying here is you think she might have committed perjury based on information you don't know about?
More and more emails are being released every week.
Yesterday it was revealed that Rep. Cummings coordinated with Lerner as to which groups should be audited. Cummings said previously that had never happened. He definitely lied.
As to Lerner, if she ever said that she had no contact with Cummings that would be perjury no? I don't think it's a very big gap to jump that she committed perjury.
So back to my question- are you suggesting that what she actually testified under oath isn't subject to perjury if it comes out that it wasn't true?
Or does her 5th amendment rights absolve her previous statement at the congressional hearing? She testified that she never lied to the committee, when it's obvious that at least one person of a two person conversation did exactly that.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:27 pm to Decatur
quote:
what you're basically saying here is you think she might have committed perjury based on information you don't know about?
It's pretty clear she lied. Her statement of innocence conflicts with emails she's sent (those that have been provided) and statements made by those that she persecuted.
You are getting owned on the facts and you've been reduced to arguing technicalities. I'd give up if I were you.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Yesterday it was revealed that Rep. Cummings coordinated with Lerner as to which groups should be audited.
I don't think those emails read as you describe it
quote:
are you suggesting that what she actually testified under oath isn't subject to perjury if it comes out that it wasn't true?
Giving an opinion that one has "done nothing wrong" or "broken no laws" is not testifying to incriminating facts, without more.
quote:
Or does her 5th amendment rights absolve her previous statement at the congressional hearing? She testified that she never lied to the committee, when it's obvious that at least one person of a two person conversation did exactly that.
If she perjured herself in prior testimony then they should have her dead-to-rights. I don't see them going after that angle though.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:32 pm to Decatur
quote:No.
So what you're basically saying here is you think she might have committed perjury based on information you don't know about?
He's agreeing with Sen. Leahy that Lerner misrepresented and/or lied to the Senate.
He is saying that Lerner made efforts to cover her criminal tracks by claiming falsely that targeting was isolated to "rogue agents" in the Cincinnati office. Any testimony to that effect was an out-and-out lie.
Which begs the question Decatur, what does the term "rogue agent" imply?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:32 pm to NC_Tigah
Arrest the broad. I want blood. Blood.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:39 pm to Decatur
quote:
I don't think those emails read as you describe it
You lie.
Catherine Barre is a member of Cummings staff. Please note who the email is addressed to.
Now why oh why is a member of congress interested in who gets audited????????
Further why are they revealing EIN's?
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:42 pm to Decatur
Once again Decatur, what does the term "rogue agent" imply?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:47 pm to Decatur
quote:
Decatur
quote:Finally something we can agree on....
I don't think
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He's agreeing with Sen. Leahy that Lerner misrepresented and/or lied to the Senate.
He is saying that Lerner made efforts to cover her criminal tracks by claiming falsely that targeting was isolated to "rogue agents" in the Cincinnati office. Any testimony to that effect was an out-and-out lie.
Now you're talking about statements made in other venues and that has no bearing on the issue of whether she waived her Fifth Amendment rights in front of Issa's committee.
quote:
Which begs the question Decatur, what does the term "rogue agent" imply?
Dunno what that is supposed to imply. I haven't seen evidence of "rogue" agents. Wouldn't call anybody that based on what we now know.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:53 pm to NC_Tigah
I still don't see anyone here offering any legal authority that Hoag does not apply.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 2:59 pm to Decatur
And I bet you wonder why lawyers are so reviled as a profession....
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:03 pm to Decatur
why are you claiming she is an ordinary witness? are you basing this on her previous testimony under proceedings that were never closed?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:05 pm to Decatur
Her and the president are worse than Nixon ever hoped to be.
Mitchell vs. the U.S., 526 U.S. 314,321 ( 1999 )
It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify Voluntarily about a Subject and then Invoke the Privilege against Self Incrimianation when questioned about the details. See Rogers vs. the U.S., 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waved for the matters which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “ waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross examination,” Brown vs. U.S. 148, 154-155 ( 1955 ) “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry.”id at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended in its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.
Ms. Lerner testified she broke no laws, period. She testified she is innocent.
Lois Lerner's testimony.
“ In addition, members of this committee have ACCUSED me of PROVIDING FALSE information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption, ” Lerner said.
I have not done ANYTHING WRONG. I have not broken ANY LAWS. I have not violated ANY IRS RULES or REGULATIONS, and I have not provided FALSE INFORMATION to THIS or ANY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.
I know people will assume I have done something wrong. I HAVE NOT.
How much plainer could it be !!
She opened up the can of worms, and is not eligible to invoke the 5th amendment.
Mitchell vs. the U.S., 526 U.S. 314,321 ( 1999 )
It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify Voluntarily about a Subject and then Invoke the Privilege against Self Incrimianation when questioned about the details. See Rogers vs. the U.S., 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waved for the matters which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “ waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross examination,” Brown vs. U.S. 148, 154-155 ( 1955 ) “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry.”id at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended in its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.
Ms. Lerner testified she broke no laws, period. She testified she is innocent.
Lois Lerner's testimony.
“ In addition, members of this committee have ACCUSED me of PROVIDING FALSE information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption, ” Lerner said.
I have not done ANYTHING WRONG. I have not broken ANY LAWS. I have not violated ANY IRS RULES or REGULATIONS, and I have not provided FALSE INFORMATION to THIS or ANY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.
I know people will assume I have done something wrong. I HAVE NOT.
How much plainer could it be !!
She opened up the can of worms, and is not eligible to invoke the 5th amendment.
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:12 pm to C
quote:
why are you claiming she is an ordinary witness?
Because she is one
quote:
In the case of an ordinary witness, however, he does not waive his immunity unless he fails to invoke it when an answer might tend to incriminate him, or unless he has given incriminating testimony, in which case he waives it so far as further details in respect thereof are concerned. Also, it should not be overlooked that the status of a defendant who testifies in his own behalf is different from that of an ordinary witness, e. g., one before a grand jury or a congressional committee. The former is not required to testify, but may make his choice of testifying or not, with the right to have the jury instructed that his failure to testify creates no presumption against him. The ordinary non-defendant witness is required to appear and answer questions unless he properly claims that his answers may tend to incriminate him.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:13 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Mitchell vs. the U.S., 526 U.S. 314,321 ( 1999 )
Criminal defendant, not ordinary witness under subpoena
quote:
In the case of an ordinary witness, however, he does not waive his immunity unless he fails to invoke it when an answer might tend to incriminate him, or unless he has given incriminating testimony, in which case he waives it so far as further details in respect thereof are concerned. Also, it should not be overlooked that the status of a defendant who testifies in his own behalf is different from that of an ordinary witness, e. g., one before a grand jury or a congressional committee. The former is not required to testify, but may make his choice of testifying or not, with the right to have the jury instructed that his failure to testify creates no presumption against him. The ordinary non-defendant witness is required to appear and answer questions unless he properly claims that his answers may tend to incriminate him.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:14 pm to Decatur
quote:You don't know what "rogue" is supposed to imply?
Dunno what that is supposed to imply.
Really?
Well my goodness, let me help.
rogue |rog|
noun
1 a dishonest or unprincipled person: i.e., you are a rogue and an embezzler.
2 [usu. as adj.] a person or thing that behaves in an aberrant, faulty, or unpredictable way
quote:Presumably you've not committed perjury either.
I haven't seen evidence of "rogue" agents.
We are not talking about you, though.
We are talking about assertions made by Top IRS officials.
We are talking about what they claimed to have seen.
quote:You wouldn't have allowed Lerner to testify and thereby bring 5th Amendment waiver into question either.
Wouldn't call anybody that based on what we now know.
But that is not the point.
The point is, the "rogue agents" assertion was made, and it was made repeatedly.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The point is, the "rogue agents" assertion was made, and it was made repeatedly.
Not in front of Issa's committee. Why are we talking about this here?
This has nothing to do with whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights in front of the House oversight committee.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:31 pm to Decatur
The testimony never ended
Posted on 4/10/14 at 3:32 pm to Decatur
Probably because you're ignoring the other threads
Page 19 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News